PRIYANKA SARKHEL Vs. BABAN SARKHEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No.4661 of 2015: For the reasons carved out in the instant application and there being no objection from the other side, the delay of 136 days in filing the accompanied appeal is hereby condoned.

(2.) I.A. No.4661 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.

(3.) What appeared to us while dealing with the instant appeal, which has been filed by the appellant -wife against the judgment and decree earned by the respondent -husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act taking the plea that after even giving birth to a son out of this wedlock, the marriage being of 2008, the appellant -wife had completely withdrawn herself from the society of the respondent -husband since 2010 without any reasonable excuse whereas the plea taken by the appellant -wife was that at the time of marriage, she was hardly of the age of 20 years and eager to build up her career, but her husband and his family members, who had initially agreed that they would permit her to go ahead with her further studies, refused and assigned her domestic work, this being the bone of contention between this young couple, if an attempt is made, perhaps this young couple could be reunited. We, thus, intervened and directed the appellant -wife and respondent -husband to appear in person. The matter was then taken up on 6th of May, 2016 on which date, both the parties were present. Father of the appellant -wife, Shri Indrajit Chakraverty was accompanying his daughter. We could persuade upon the couple to stay together and the appellant willingly agreed to it. She joined the company of the respondent -husband from the Court itself. However, learned counsel for both the sides made a joint request for keeping the instant matter pending for at least 4 -6 weeks for further assessment of the decision taken by the couple on that day. It is how the instant matter is placed before us today once again.